Quote:
Originally Posted by countmeworthy
Hello TLG...good to see you again.
I wasn't sure if you were returning so I hadn't posted yet. Whether you were going to or not..I was going to post some pointers this week nevertheless.
The Priestly anointing is Biblical...but just like those who argue, the 'Triune God' is not mentioned in the Bible...You have to search deeply. It's not 'point blank.' (I'll speak of this in a separate post)
|
The comparison is not quite the same. That the Trinity is described in the Bible but not specifically taught as a doctrine is related to our experience of the Trinity. All who are genuine believers experience the Father, Son and Spirit, and are not needed to be taught the Trinity; nor do they require an explicit theology concerning the Trinity. Certainly the doctrine of the Trinity may help a believer to coalesce that which he has seen in the Scripture, but it is not essential.
On the other hand what you are essentially advocating is an
interpretation of doctrine as Scriptural truth. This essentially amounts to a deviation from Sola Scriptura. Rather than starting with, "The evidence from various parts of Scripture appears that the anointing is X," and then going to, "Let us search the Scriptures to more clearly see this truth and develop our theology;" your argument begins with, "My supposition is that the anointing is X, Y and a little of Z." then goes to, "Here are the Scriptures that appear to support my supposition." By such reasoning any number of doctrines may created purely from thin air and then forced into Scripture. Any number of doctrines have been created this way historically. Take the Roman Church's doctrine of Mary's perpetual sinlessness for example. It starts with a supposition based upon reasoning that, "In order for Christ to have been born sinless He must have been born to a woman without the stain of sin. Therefore Mary must have also been born without sin." Then after searching for evidence from Scripture which supports the supposition (however thinly) the conclusion is arrived at: "Because the Archangel Michael told Mary that she was 'full of grace' and 'blessed among women,' it therefore stands that Mary was born without the stain of original sin.
Your argument is essentially the same. You began with the premise that the anointing is, "the power by which Christ carried out His ministry," and then "the power which fell upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost." Then you went to the Scriptures to find out if those suppositions were true. Not only so, but you then further pushed the supposition to include various "types" or "levels" of anointings, forcing such concepts upon Scripture.
Therefore your teachings concerning the anointing is extra-Biblical inasmuch as it is a deviation from Sola Scriptura.
~~~~
Now, concerning the exercising of the Spirit, praying for God's speaking, and living and walking by the Spirit, such things are absolutely Biblical concepts. We find these concepts intertwined with Scripture in just about every facet. I do enjoy very much exercising my spirit, but that is altogether related to the divine life, the Spirit mingled with my spirit, to produce the fruits of the Spirit. It is altogether right to pray for the Lord's speaking before entering into a meeting with the saints. This type of prayer is exemplified many times in the Scripture. Yet nowhere in Scripture have I ever found a person praying for the anointing. We may also, I believe, pray for the Lord to "anoint our tongues," for such indicates our desire for the Lord to restrain us only to His leading, to His speaking. But that is a diverse concept from praying for an ethereal "power" to fall upon me, anointing me with "fire," etc.